Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On Antichrist · On the Roman Pontiff, Book III
Chapter 24: The Arguments of Calvin and Illyricus Refuted; the Fable of Pope Joan
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Antichristo, On Antichrist (On the Roman Pontiff, Book III). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There remains what we proposed in the last place, namely to show that the Roman Pontiff is not only not Antichrist, but has not in any other way lost his Pontificate. For Calvin and Illyricus — the one by reasoning, the other by a certain conjecture — try to prove that there is at this time no true Bishop.
And to begin with Calvin, he speaks thus in the Institutes, Book 4, chapter 7, §§ 23 and 24: “But I would gladly know what the Pontiff has that is at all Episcopal. First, in the office of a Bishop the chief thing is to teach the people of God by the word; the second and next to this, to administer the Sacraments; the third, to admonish and exhort, and also to correct those who sin, and to keep the people in holy discipline. Which of these does he do? nay, which does he pretend to do? Let them say, then, by what reason they wish him to be held a Bishop, who touches no part of the office even in show, with his little finger. It is not with a Bishop as with a King; for the latter, although he does not execute what is proper to a King, nevertheless retains the honor and title. But in judging of a Bishop, regard is had to the command of Christ, which ought always to be valid in the Church. Let the Romanists then solve me this knot. I deny that their Pontiff is the Prince of Bishops, since he is not a Bishop.” Thus he.
If I am not mistaken, this whole reasoning can be reduced to this brief syllogism. Since there is this difference between a Bishop and a King, that King is a name of power and prefecture, to which is annexed the office of ruling the people, but Bishop is a name of office alone — of ministering the word of God and the Sacraments — then certainly, if neither the King nor the Bishop discharge his office, the King will retain his name and dignity, the Bishop will lose it. But the Roman Pontiff does not discharge the Episcopal office, not even in show, since he ministers neither the word nor the Sacraments to the peoples; therefore the Roman Pontiff has lost his name and dignity, and accordingly cannot be called a Bishop.
Now the Magdeburgians, Century 9, chapter 20, column 500, try to confirm this same thing by a conjecture and a sign. For they say that an evident sign of the change of the Roman Church into the Babylonian harlot was that God willed that about those times in which the change was made, a certain true harlot woman should sit in the Pontifical see — who indeed is called Pope John the eighth.
This they prove: first, from the authors Platina, Martin the Pole, Sigebert, and Marianus Scotus. Secondly, from the traces of that matter which have remained to our times: namely, from a certain porphyry seat perforated within, which remained in the Palace of Saint John Lateran, the use of which they say was instituted after that crime was detected, to explore, namely, whether the newly created Pontiff were male or not; likewise from a certain statue of a woman with a boy, which remained to our times in that place; and finally from this, that the Roman Pontiffs, when they go from the Vatican to the Lateran, are wont to avoid that place where that woman is said to have given birth, in detestation of the deed; for otherwise that is the direct way. But it is not difficult to solve these knots.
And to answer Calvin first: Calvin speaks either of the signification of the name, or of the thing itself, when he says that Bishop is a name of office, King a name of dignity. If of the signification of the name, he is plainly deceived; for as Bishop is named from [episkopein], that is, from considering or inspecting, and sounds the office of inspecting, so also King is named from ruling, and sounds the office of ruling. And as King is a name of magistracy, so [episkopos] too among the Heathen was a name of magistracy, namely of a Praetor, as is plain from Aristophanes in the Birds; and, what is more, the same name of shepherd is attributed in the divine letters to a Bishop and to a King, as is plain from Ephesians 4 and Isaiah 64.
But if he speaks of the thing itself, he is no less deceived; for, as royal authority is not a simple office of judging, as is the judgment of others, but a true prefecture in political affairs — that is, a power of ruling men subject to it, by commanding and punishing — so also the Episcopate is not a simple office of preaching, as is that of many others who preach and are not pastors, but a true Ecclesiastical prefecture, that is, a power of ruling men in spiritual and divine things, and accordingly of commanding and punishing. Of which matter we said much above, and will say more below in the following book. Now it will suffice to have noted a few places, but most clear. The Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 11: The rest I will set in order when I come. And 2 Corinthians 13: That being present I may not deal more harshly, according to the power which the Lord hath given me. And Hebrews 13: Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. And 1 Timothy 5: Against a Presbyter receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses.
Add here too that it is false that the Pontiffs do not discharge the Episcopal office. For they are not bound to preach and minister the Sacraments in person, if they be hindered by some just cause, but it is enough if they take care that all these be performed by others; otherwise Bishops would be bound to impossibilities; for there is no Bishop so small that he can suffice by himself to preach and minister the Sacraments in his whole diocese. As therefore he satisfies if, in the place where he cannot by himself, he preaches through another, so he satisfies if in every place he preaches through others, when in none can he do it by himself. Nor are examples of antiquity lacking. For Possidius writes, in the life of blessed Augustine, that Saint Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, committed to Saint Augustine, his presbyter, the office of preaching, because he himself, being a Greek, could not preach to the Latin people. And in the same place Possidius relates that in the Eastern Church many Bishops were wont to commit to their presbyters the office of preaching, which they could not execute by themselves; nor yet can we say that either Saint Valerius, or others who did not preach the word of God by themselves, were not Bishops.
To the argument of the Magdeburgians I say: that that story of Pope John the woman is a fable, which Onuphrius accurately enough refutes in his Additions to Platina; and first it is plainly convicted of being a fable, from the testimonies of the Greek and Latin writers. The first of all who could write of this matter, and who knew it best, was Anastasius the Librarian, who lived at that very time in which that John the eighth is feigned to have held the Pontificate — namely about the year 850 — and was present at the creation of many Pontiffs who either preceded or followed this John. He, then, writes that after Leo IV the See was vacant fifteen days, and that soon by common consent Benedict III was created; by which words he indicates that there was no John the woman. For all who admit that John say that he sat after Leo IV, and before Benedict III, and lived in the Pontificate two years and five months.
They will say perhaps: that Anastasius, out of favor to the Pontiffs, omitted that John the eighth; but on the contrary, for he ought at least to have set down that the See was vacant after Leo IV for two years and a half, lest he admit a proven error in Chronology, and an error which could be refuted by eye-witnesses who then lived. They answer: that there is no error in Chronology, because those two years of John are added to the years of Leo IV; for Leo IV is said by Anastasius to have sat eight years, which are so to be taken that six years are Leo's own, the other two are added from the years of John the woman.
But on the contrary: for not only Anastasius, but also Martin the Pole, and Platina, and the Magdeburgians, and Bibliander, and others, who set John the eighth as having sat two years, give Leo eight years; therefore there will necessarily be an error in the Chronology of Anastasius, if that John be set as having been Pontiff after Leo.
Next, not Anastasius alone, but also Ado, Bishop of Vienne, who lived at the same time, and of whom there is no suspicion that he wished to lie out of favor to the Pontiffs, teaches that there was no John between Leo IV and Benedict III; for thus he speaks in his Chronicle of the year 865: “The Roman Pontiff Gregory dies, and in his place Sergius is ordained; he being dead, Leo succeeds; he departing, Benedict is substituted in the Apostolic See.” And similarly speak Regino, Lambert, Hermann Contractus, the Abbot of Ursperg, Otto of Freising, and all the other historians, who are very many, down to Martin the Pole, who was four hundred years later than that feigned John the eighth, and himself first mentioned this John the eighth against the faith of all the ancients; and from him Platina and the other more recent writers received it.
And not only the Latins, but also the Greeks who wrote before Martin the Pole — as Zonaras, Cedrenus, John Curopalates, and others — make no mention of this so prodigious a history among the affairs of that time; though they do not favor the Roman Pontiff, and would gladly have taken occasion of deriding the Latins in this part, if they could. But how is it credible that Martin the Pole, who lived in the year 1250, knew the deeds done about the year 850 better than all the other historians who lived in the year 800, or 900, or the thousandth?
But that which the Magdeburgians say, that Sigebert and Marianus Scotus, more ancient than Martin the Pole, set John the woman in their Chronicles, is false. For although in the printed Sigebert and Marianus Scotus John the woman is found, yet in the most ancient manuscripts she is not found, and it is established enough that those authors were corrupted. There is still extant in the monastery of Gembloux, where Sigebert was a Monk, a most ancient manuscript copy, which is thought to be Sigebert's own autograph, and in it there is no mention of John the woman; which manuscript copy John Molanus, Doctor of Louvain, who still survives, testifies that he saw. Similarly, that in the most ancient copies of Marianus Scotus John the woman is not had, he testifies who published the Metropolis of Albert Krantz, in the year 1574, at Cologne.
Then, secondly, that this narration of Martin about John the woman is a fable is proved from the narration itself. For, first, he says that this John was an Englishman from Mainz; but Mainz is not in England, but in Germany. And to amend this error, others fight wonderfully among themselves. For Platina says that this John was an Englishman, but sprung from Mainz; the Magdeburgians on the contrary say that he was of Mainz, but sprung from England; and Theodore Bibliander in his Chronicle says that he was neither born nor sprung from England, but yet was educated and instructed in England.
Secondly, Martin, and those who follow him, say that he gave himself to letters at Athens; but it is established that at that time there were no literary schools either at Athens or anywhere else in Greece. For Synesius writes, in his last letter to his brother, that in his time there was nothing at Athens but the name of the Academy; and Synesius was a little after the times of Basil and Nazianzen. Cedrenus too and Zonaras write, in the life of the Emperors Michael and Theodore, that about the end of the reign of Michael — when namely he reigned alone, his mother Theodora being removed — the schools of good letters and Philosophy were restored by Bardas Caesar, since down to that time, for very many years, all the studies of wisdom in Greece had been so extinguished that not even a trace of them remained. But it is established that the reign of Michael alone, Theodora being removed, fell in the times of Nicholas I, who succeeded Benedict III, who had succeeded (as these feign) John the eighth the woman. Nay, all the Chronologies, and even Bibliander himself, set the beginning of the reign of Michael alone in the year of Christ 856, and the Pontificate of John the woman in the year 854; whence it follows that after the death of that John the studies of wisdom began to revive in Greece.
Thirdly, the Magdeburgians say that this John the eighth gave birth on a journey, when she wished from the Vatican to visit the Lateran Church; but it is most certain, as Onuphrius demonstrates in his book on the seven Churches, that the Roman Pontiffs did not dwell in the Vatican, but in the Lateran Palace, down to the times of Boniface IX, that is, down to the year 1390. How then, if she dwelt in the Lateran, did she wish from the Vatican to visit the Lateran? Certainly if anyone now should write that the Pontiff came from the Lateran to visit the Vatican Church, he would be ridiculous, since all know that the Pontiff dwells in the Vatican.
Fourthly, Martin, and all the rest, say that this John gave birth in a solemn and public procession; but certainly it has no probability that a woman bearing a child now so many months would then chiefly wish to go forth, when there was the greatest danger lest she be detected.
Thirdly, this same thing is proved from the letter of Leo IX, a most grave Pontiff, to Michael, Bishop of Constantinople, chapter 23, where Pope Leo writes that there is a constant report that in the Patriarchate of Constantinople many eunuchs sat, and that among them there also crept in, and was Patriarch, one woman. Which certainly Leo IX would never have objected to the Greeks, if any such thing had a little before happened to the Roman See. Nay, perhaps hence arose this fable of John the woman. For when there was a rumor that a certain woman had been Pontiff of Constantinople, and then gradually, the name of Constantinople being omitted, there remained the report and opinion of a woman Pontiff, and a universal Pontiff, some began, in hatred of the Roman Church, to say that that woman had been Roman Pontiff; and it is likely that about the times of Martin himself this report arose. Certainly Martin the Pole, who first wrote this, cites no author, but only said it is reported; and so he had this only from an uncertain rumor.
Nor ought it to seem strange if someone, in hatred of the Roman Church, feigned this fable, that foundation of a woman Pontiff being laid, and the greatest contentions which were at that time between the Imperial and the Papal men; for even now we see the Magdeburgians feign more incredible things. For whereas Martin only wrote that this woman was an Englishwoman from Mainz, and added nothing else of the parents, and the proper name of the woman, and of the other matters, the Magdeburgians added that the father of this woman was an English priest, and that she was called at first Gilberta, and was reared under the habit of a man in the monastery of Fulda, and wrote books on Magic — which are all mere figments, devised without witness and without reason. Add that that Martin the Pole seems to have been a most simple man; for he writes very many other fables, as if they were most approved histories.
But that which they object of the perforated seat, of the statue of the woman, and of the turning aside from the way, is easily solved. For, as is established from Book 1 of the sacred ceremonies, section 2, there were three stone seats in the Lateran Basilica, in which the new Pontiff sat at the time of his coronation. The first seat was before the entrance into the temple, and that a mean and abject one, to which the new Pontiff was first led, and in it he sat a little while, that by that ceremony it might be signified that he ascends from a most humble place to the highest place; for, raising him thence, they sang that of 1 Kings 2: He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor out of the dunghill, that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. And this is the cause why that seat was called the dung-seat. The second seat was of porphyry, in the palace itself, and there he sat a second time, in sign of possession, and sitting there received the keys of the Church of the Lateran palace. The third seat was like the second, and not far from it; and sitting in it after a little, he delivered the same keys to him from whom he had before received them — perhaps that by that ceremony he might be admonished of death, through which he would soon deliver that power to another. Of a seat for exploring the sex, there is nowhere any mention.
But that statue of a woman with a boy was without doubt not of Pope John. For if the adversaries say that the ancient historians, out of favor to the Pontiff, would not put the memory of this woman in their books, how is it likely that the Pontiffs themselves wished the memory to exist in a statue? Next, if it were the statue of this John, it would have represented a woman with a newly born infant; but that image neither represented a woman, nor bore an infant in its bosom, but represented a boy large enough, and of many years, as it were a servant going before. Wherefore some conjecture that that statue was of some Heathen priest prepared to sacrifice, whom his minister preceded. Finally, why the Pontiffs omit that shorter way when setting out to the Lateran, is not in detestation of any crime, but because that way is narrow and winding, and accordingly inconvenient for the Papal retinue, which is wont always to be very numerous. Add that, as Onuphrius testifies, there are not lacking Pontiffs who more than once made their journey by this very way.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIY. \ Refutantur argumenta Calvini et Illyrici , qui probare conantur , Papam non esse amplius Episcopum , ubi etiam refellitur fabula de Joanne Papa femina. Restat id, quod ultimo loco proposuimus, ut videlicet ostendamus, Romanum Pontifi¬ cem non solum Antichristum non esse, sed nec ullo alio modo amisisse Pontificatum suum. Siquidem Calvinus et Illyricus, ille ratione, iste conjectura quadam probare co¬ nantur, non esse hoc tempore verum Epis¬ copum. Atq ue ut a Calvino incipiamus, ita ille loqui¬ tur in Instit. IY, cap. 7, §. 23 et 24 : « Ipse vero Pontifex quid omnino habeat Episco¬ pale, scire velim : primum in munere Epis¬ copi caput est, plebem Dei verbo docere : alterum et proximum huic, Sacramenta ad¬ ministrare : tertium monere et hortari, cor¬ rigere etiam eos qui peccant, ac in sancta disciplina populum continere. Quid istorum facit? imo quid facere se simulat? Dicant igitur, qua ratione velint haberi Episcopum, qui nullam officii partem minimo digito vel in speciem saltem attingit. Non ita de Epis¬ copo est, ut de Rege : hic enim etsi non exequatur quod proprium est Regis, hono¬ rem nihilominus ac titulum retinet. At in Episcopo dijudicando respicitur Christi man¬ datum, quod semper in Ecclesia valere de¬ bet : hunc ergo nodum mihi solvant Roma¬ nenses. Nego ipsorum Pontificem esse Epis¬ coporum Principem, cum non sit Episcopus. » Haec ille. Ni fallor, tota haec ratiocinatio ad hunc brevem syllogismum revocari potest. Cum hoc intersit inter Episcopum, et Regem, quod Rex, nomen est potestatis et praefec¬ turae, cui annexum est officium regendi po¬ pulum : Episcopus autem, est nomen solius officii , verbum Dei et Sacramenta minis¬ trandi ; certe si neque Rex, neque Episco¬ pus munere suo fungatur, Rex nomen et dignitatem suam retinebit, Episcopus amit¬ tet : Romanus autem Pontifex officio Epis¬ copali, nec in speciem quidem fungitur ; quippe qui nec verbum, nec Sacramenta populis ministrat ; Romanus igitur Pontifex nomen et dignitatem suam perdidit, atque adeo Episcopus dici non potest. Jam vero Magdeburgenses, Centur. IX, cap. 20, coi. 500. id ipsum conjectura et signo confirmare nituntur. Aiunt enim, sig¬ num evidens mutationis Romanae Ecclesia; in Babylonicam meretricem fuisse, quod vo¬ luerit Deus, ut circa illa tempora, in quibus mutatio facta est, vera quaedam mulier me¬ retrix in sede Pontificia sederet : quae qui¬ dem Joannes Papa octavus dicta est. Id vero probant. Primo, ex auctoribus, Platina, Martino Polono, Sigeberto, et Ma¬ riano Scoto. Secundo, ex vestigiis ejus rei, quas ad nostra tempora remanserunt : nimi¬ rum, ex quadam sede porphyretica intus per¬ forata, quaemanebat in Palatio sancti Joannis Lateranensis, cujus usum fuisse dicunt insti¬ tutum post flagitium illud detectum, ad ex¬ plorandum, videlicet, an Pontifex recens creatus esset masculus nec ne? Item, ex quadam statua mulieris cum puero, quae us¬ que ad nostra tempora mansit in eo loco, nique, ex eo, quod Romani Pontifices, quan¬ do ex Vaticano ad Lateranum pergunt, so¬ lent declinare locum illum, ubi ista mulier dicitur peperisse, in detestationem facti ; alioqui enim illa est recta via. Sed non est difficile hos nodos solvere. Ac ut Calvino primum respondeamus ; vel Calvinus loquitur de significatione nominis, vel de re ipsa, quando dicit, Episcopum esse nomen officii, Regem esse nomen dignitatis. Si de nominis significatione ; aperte decipi¬ tur : nam ut Episcopus dicitur ab sTu^onslv id est, a considerando, sive inspiciendo, et sonat officium inspiciendi : ita etiam Rex dicitur a regendo, et sonat officium regendi. Et sicut Rex est nomen Magistratus : ita l7u<Txo7ro? etiam apud Ethnicos erat nomen Magistratus, nimirum, Praetoris ; ut patet ex Aristophane in avibus : et quod majus est, idem nomen pastoris in divinis litteris tri¬ buitur Episcopo, et Regi ; ut patet ad Ephes. IV et Isa. LXIV. Si vero de re ipsa loquitur ; non minus decipitur ; nam, ut regia auctoritas non est simplex officium judicandi, ut est judicium aliorum, sed vera praefectura in rebus poli¬ ticis, id est, potestas regendi homines sibi subjectos, imperando, et puniendo : ita etiam Episcopatus non est simplex officium / praedicandi, ut est aliorum multorum, qui concionantur, et non sunt pastores, sed est vera praefectura Ecclesiastica, id est, potes¬ tas regendi homines in rebus spiritualibus, et divinis ; ac proinde imperandi, et punien¬ di. De qua re et multa supra diximus, et plura adhuc infra dicemus in lib. seq. Nunc pauca loca, sed clarissima annotasse suffi¬ ciet. Apostolus Paulus I. Cor. XI : Ccetera , inquit, cum venero disponam. Et II. Cor. XIII : Ut non prcesens durius agam , secundum potes¬ tatem, quam dedit mihi Dominus. Et Hebr. XIII : Obedite prcepositis vestris et subjacete eis. Et I. Timoth. Y : Adversus Presbyterum accusationem noli recipere , nisi sub duobus , aut tribus testibus (1). Adde huc quoque, falsum esse, Pontifices non fungi munere Episcopali. Nam non te¬ nentur per se concionari, et Sacramenta ministrare, si justa aliqua de causa impe¬ diantur, sed satis est, si curent, per alios ista omnia praestari : alioqui Episcopi ad im¬ possibilia obligarentur : nullus enim est tam exiguus Episcopus, qui possit per se suffice¬ re ad concionandum, et Sacramenta minis¬ tranda in tota sua dioecesi. Sicut ergo satis¬ facit, si in eo loco, ubi per se non potest, per alium concionatur : ita satisfacit, si in omni loco per alios concionetur, quando in nullo per se id facere potest. Neque desunt exempla antiquitatis. Scribit enim Possidius in vita B. Augustini, S. Valerium Episcopum Hipponensem commisisse S. Augustino pres¬ bytero suo officium praedicandi, propterea quod ipse, cum Graecus esset, non posset Latino populo praedicare. Et ibidem Possi¬ dius refert, in Orientali Ecclesia plures Epis¬ copos munus praedicandi, quod ipsi per se exequi nequibant, presbyteris suis deman¬ dare solitos : nec tamen dicere possumus, vel S. Valerium, vel alios, qui per se non praedicabant verbum Dei, Episcopos non fuisse. Ad argumentum Magdeburgensium dico : fabulam esse illam de Joanne Papa femina, quam satis accurate refellit Onuphrius in Addit, ad Platin. ac primum aperte convin¬ citur esse fabula, ex testimoniis scriptorum Graecorum et Latinorum. Primus omnium, qui de hac re scribere potuit, et qui rem optime novit, fuit Anastasius Bibliotheca- rius, qui illo ipso tempore vixit, quo fingitur Joannes iste VIII, Pontificatum gessisse, ni¬ mirum circa annum 850, et interfuit crea¬ tioni Pontificum multorum, qui hunc Joan- nem vel praecesserunt, vel secuti sunt. Ille igitur scribit, post Leonem IV vacasse Se¬ dem quindecim diebus, et mox communi consensu creatum fuisse Benedictum III, quibus verbis indicat, nullum fuisse Joan- nem feminam. Omnes enim, qui istum Joan- nem admittunt, dicunt, eum sedisse post Leonem IV, et ante Benedictum III, et vixisse in Pontificatu duobus annis, et quinque men¬ sibus. Dicent fortasse : Anastasium in gratiam Pontificum omisisse istum Joannem VIII ; at contra, nam saltem debuit ponere, Sedem vacasse post Leonem IV, duobus annis cum medio, ne errorem exploratum in Ghronolo- gia admitteret, et errorem qui poterat refelli ab oculatis testibus qui tunc vivebant. Res¬ pondent : non esse errorem in Chronologia, quia duo isti anni Joannis adduntur annis Leonis IV. Leo enim IV, dicitur ab Anasta- sio sedisse annis 8, qui ita accipiendi sunt, ut sex anni sint ipsius Leonis, alii duo ad¬ dantur ex annis Joannis feminee. At contra : nam non solum Anastasius, sed etiam Martinus Polonus, et Platina, et Magdeburgenses, et Bibliander, et alii, qui ponunt Joannem VIII sedisse duobus annis, dant Leoni annos octo ; igitur necessario erit error in Chronologia Anastasii, si iste Joannes ponatur fuisse Pontifex post Leo¬ nem. Deinde non solus Anastasius, sed etiam Ado Episcopus Viennensis, qui eodem tem¬ pore vixit, et de quo nulla suspicio est, quod in gratiam Pontificum voluerit mentiri, do¬ cet, nullum fuisse Joannem inter Leonem IV et Benedictum III ; sic enim loquitur in Chr. anni 865 : « Pontifex, inquit, Romanus Gre- gorius moritur, atque ejus loco Sergius or¬ dinatur : illo defuncto, succedit Leo. Quo obeunte, Benedictus in Sede Apostolica sub¬ stituitur. » Et similiter loquuntur Rhegino, Lambertus, Hermannus Contractus, Abbas Urspergensis, Otho Frisingensis, et omnes alii historici, qui plurimi sunt, usque ad Martinum Polonum, qui fuit quadringentis annis posterior isto ficto Joanne VIII, et ipse primus hujus Joannis VIII meminit contra fidem omnium antiquorum : ab ipso autem acceperunt Platina, et cseteri recentiores. Nec solum Latini, sed etiam Graeci, qui (1) I. Cor. XI, 34: II. Cor. XIII, 10: Hebr. XIII, 17; I. Timoth. V, 19. ante Martinura Polonum scripserunt, ut Zo- naras, Cedrenus, Joannes Guropalates, et alii nullam mentionem hujus tam prodigio¬ sae historiae inter res ejus temporis faciunt : cum tamen illi non faveant Romano Pontifi¬ ci, quique libenter accepissent occasionem irridendi Latinos in hac parte, si potuissent. Quomodo autem credibile est, melius novisse res gestas, circa annum 850, Martinum Po¬ lonum, qui vixit anno 1250, quam omnes historicos alios, qui vixerunt anno 800, vel 900, vel millesimo ? Quod autem Magdeburgenses dicunt, Si- gebertum et Marianum Scotum Martino Po- lono antiquiores, Joannem feminam in suis Chronicis posuisse, falsum est. Etsi enim in impresso Sigeberto et Mariano Scoto inve¬ niatur Joannes femina : tamen in antiquis¬ simis manuscriptis non invenitur, et satis constat, corruptos fuisse auctores illos. Ex¬ stat adhuc in monasterio Gemblacensi, ubi fuit Monachus Sigebertus, antiquissimum exemplum manuscriptum, quod putatur ip¬ sius Sigeberti autographum, et in eo nulla mentio est Joannis feminae : quod manus¬ criptum exemplum testatur se vidisse Joan¬ nes Molanus Doctor Lovaniensis, qui adhuc superest. Similiter in antiquissimis exempla¬ ribus Mariani Scoti non haberi Joannem fe¬ minam testatur ille, qui Metropolim Alberti Krantii edidit, anno 1574, Colonia;. Deinde secundo, quod fabula sit ista nar¬ ratio Martini de Joanne femina, probatur ex ipsa narratione. Primo enim dicit, istum Joannem fuisse Anglicum ex Moguntia : at Moguntia non est in Anglia, sed in Germa¬ nia. Ut autem hunc errorem emendent alii, mirabiliter inter se pugnant. Nam Platina dicit, fuisse Anglicum istum Joannem, sed oriundum ex Moguntia : Magdeburgenses e contrario dicunt fuisse Moguntinum , sed oriundum ex Anglia : Theodorus autem Bi- bliander in Chron. dicit, neque natum, ne¬ que oriundum ex Anglia, sed tamen educa¬ tum et eruditum in Anglia. Secundo, dicit Martinus , et qui eum se¬ quuntur, dedisse operam litteris Athenis : at constat eo tempore , neque Athenis, ne¬ que usquam alibi in Graecia fuisse ulla Gym¬ nasia litteraria. Scribit enim Synesiusin ep. ult. ad fratrem suum, suo tempore Athenis nihil fuisse, nisi nomen Academiae : fuit au¬ tem Synesius paulo post tempora Basilii et Nazianzeni. Scribunt etiam Cedrenus, et Zo- naras in vita Michael, et Theod. Irnper. cir¬ ca fin. Imperii Michaelis , quando nimirum solus regnabat, matre Theodora amota, bo¬ narum litterarum et Philosophiae scholas fuisse restitutas a Barda Caesare, cum usque ad illud tempus per annos plurimos ita fuis¬ sent extincta omnia studia sapientiae in Grae¬ cia, ut ne vestigium quidem ullum exstaret. Constat autem Imperium Michaelis solius, Theodora amota, incidisse in tempora Nico¬ lai I, qui successit Benedicto III, qui succes¬ serat, ut isti fingunt , Joanni VIII foeminae. Imo Chronologiae omnes, et ipse -etiam Bi- bliander, ponunt initium Imperii Michaelis solius, anno Christi 856, et Joannis foeminae Pontificatum, anno 854, ex quo sequitur, post mortem Joannis istius, coepisse in Grae¬ cia reviviscere studia sapientiae. Tertio, Magdeburgenses dicunt, Joannem istum VIII, peperisse in itinere, cum ex Va¬ ticano invisere vellet Ecclesiam Lateranen¬ sem : at certissimum est , ut Onuphrius de¬ monstrat in lib. de sept. Eccles. Romanos Pontifices non habitasse in Vaticano , sed in Lateranensi Palatio, usque ad tempora Bo- nifacii IX, id est, usque ad annum 1390; quomodo ergo, si in Laterano habitabat, vo¬ lebat ex Vaticano invisere Lateranum? Certe si quis nunc scriberet, Pontificem ex Laterano venisse, ut inviseret Ecclesiam Vaticanam, ridiculus esset, cum omnes sciant, Pontificem in Vaticano habitare. Quarto, dicit Martinus, et caeteri omnes, istum Joannem in solemni et publica suppli¬ catione peperisse : at certe nullam habet probabilitatem, quod mulier uterum gerens jam tot menses, tunc maxime voluerit pro¬ cedere, quando maxime periculum erat ne detegeretur. Tertio, probatur hoc idem ex epist. Leo¬ nis IX, gravissimi Pontificis, ad Michael. Episc. Constantinopolit. cap. 23. ubi Leo Papa scribit, famam esse constantem, in Pa- triarchatu Constantinopolitano multos eunu¬ chos sedisse , et inter eos obrepsisse etiam, et fuisse Patriarcham unam foeminam. Quod certe nunquam objiceret Leo IX Graecis , si tale aliquid paulo ante Romanae Sedi acci¬ disset. Imo fortasse hinc nata est haec fabula de Joanne foemina. Cum enim rumor esset, quamdam feminam fuisse Pontificem Con- stantinopolitanum : et deinde paulatim, omisso nomine Constantinopolitani, reman¬ sisset fama et opinio de femina Pontifice , et Pontifice universali ; coeperunt aliqui in odium Romanae Ecclesiae dicere, feminam illam Romanum Pontificem fuisse : et verisi¬ mile est, circa tempora ipsius Martini hanc famam exortam. Certe MartinusPolonus, qui primus hoc scripsit, nullum auctorem refert, sed tantum dixit , fertur : itaque solum ex incerto rumore hoc habuit. Neque mirum videri debet , si aliquis in odium Romanae Ecclesiae hanc fabulam fin¬ xerit, posito fundamento illo de femine Pon¬ tifice, et maximis contentionibus, quae erant illo tempore inter Imperatorios et Pontificios homines : nam etiam nunc videmus, Magde- burgenses magis incredibilia fingere. Cum enim Martinus solum scripserit , hanc mu¬ lierem fuisse Anglicam ex Moguntia , neque aliud addiderit de parentibus, et nomine proprio mulieris, et de caeteris rebus : Mag- deburgenses addiderunt, patrem hujus femi¬ nae fuisse Anglum sacerdotem, et ipsam vo¬ catam initio Gilbertam, nutritam quoque sub habitu viri in monasterio Fuldensi, et libros de Magia scripsisse : quae sunt omnia mera figmenta sine teste , et sine ratione excogi¬ tata. Adde, quod Martinus ille Polonus vir simplicissimus videtur fuisse : scribit enim alias fabulas permultas, tanquam si historiae probatissimae essent. Quod vero objiciunt de sede perforata, de statua mulieris, et de declinatione a via, facile solvuntur. Nam , ut ex lib. I. sacrar. caeremoniar. sect. 2. constat , tres erant se¬ des lapideae in Lateranensi Basilica , in qui¬ bus novus Pontifex sedebat tempore suae coronationis. Prima sedes erat ante ingres¬ sum in templum, eaque vilis et abjecta, ad quem sedem novus Pontifex primum duce¬ batur, atque in ea aliquantulum sedebat , ut per eam caeremoniam significaretur, eum de loco humillimo ad locum summum ascen¬ dere : inde enim illum elevantes , canebant (1) I. Reg. II, 8. illud I. Reg. II : Suscitat de pulvere egenum , et de stercore elevat pauperem , ut sedeat cum Principibus , et solium glorice teneat (1). Et haec est causa, cur ea sedes stercoraria dice¬ retur. Altera sedes erat porphyretica , in ipso palatio, et ibi sedebat secundo in sig¬ num possessionis , atque ibi sedens accipie¬ bat claves Ecclesiae palatii Lateranensis. Tertia sedes similis erat secundae, nec pro¬ cul ab ea ; atque in ea post paululum sedens, tradebat easdem claves ei, a quo ante acce¬ perat, forte ut ea caeremonia admoneretur mortis, per quam brevi potestatem illam al¬ teri traditurus esset. De sede , ad exploran¬ dum sexum, nulla usquam mentio. Statua vero illa mulieris cum puero sine dubio non erat Joannis Papae. Nam si adver¬ sarii dicunt, antiquos historicos in gratiam Pontificis noluisse memoriam hujus mulieris in libris ponere ; quomodo verisimile est, voluisse Pontifices ipsos memoriam exstare in statua? Deinde, si statua hujus Joannis esset, mulierem cum infantulo recens nato repraesentasset : at imago illa neque femi¬ nam referebat, neque infantem in sinu gere¬ bat, sed puerum satis magnum, et annorum multorum, quasi praecedentem famulum, re¬ ferebat. Quare conjiciunt quidam, fuisse sta¬ tuam illam alicujus Ethnici sacerdotis parati ad sacrificandum , quem suus minister prae¬ cedebat. Denique, cur Pontifices viam illam breviorem omittant ad Lateranum proficis¬ centes , non est in detestationem ullius sce¬ leris, sed quia via illa est angusta, et anfrac¬ tuosa, et proinde incommoda Pontificio co¬ mitatui, qui semper frequentissimus esse so¬ let. Adde, quod, ut Onuphrius testatur, non desunt Pontifices , qui non semel per hanc ipsam viam iter fecerunt. ✓